Holder Indicates New AWB Still on Table

Apparently he’s looking for a repeat of 1994. To me, the real worry is he’ll push this after we kick all the pro-gun Democrats out of office and replace them with Republicans who will be untested, or in some cases anti-gun outright. After 2010, he won’t have Harry Reid in his way either.

UPDATE: Sorry folks, this popped up in Google just recently, linking to the ABC story which is a year old. I just read the date and thought it was new. I didn’t notice the year.

Tag Team: A Dangerous Right

Looks like Saul Cornell and Dennis Henigan have gotten together to disparage the Second and Fourteenth Amendments in this months edition of the National Law Journal. Saul Cornell argues the 14th Amendment has no problem with disarmament, as long as it’s done equally:

There are some facts that are beyond dispute. Although there is ample evidence that the 14th Amendment was widely understood to bar the selective disarmament of blacks by Southern governments, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that anyone believed that the 14th Amendment prevented the states from passing neutrally applicable gun regulations designed to promote public safety.

The argument would seem to be that because the post-reconstruction courts effectively eviscerated the 14th Amendment, so that Jim Crow could properly imposed on the South, that of course means there was never intended to be any right-to-bear arms, by blacks or anyone. This strikes me as a weak argument given our modern understanding of the amendment, and just so there’s no misunderstanding about the case which Saul Cornell cited, you can read about it here.

Backing up Saul Cornell is Dennis Henigan, who says that guns are such a menace to society that it justifies essentially ignoring, or largely ignoring, one tenth of the Bill of Rights:

There is at least one respect in which the new right to have guns is vastly different than other rights. A wealth of empirical evidence shows that the exercise of the right to possess guns increases the risk of harm to individuals exercising the right, to their families and to the community at large. However the Court decides the incorporation question, its discussion of Second Amendment issues in McDonald and its future Second Amendment jurisprudence must recognize that the Second Amendment is, indisputably, the most dangerous right.

I don’t know about that Dennis. Ideas can be some of the most dangerous things humans can generate, and speech is the primary mechanism by which these ideas are spread. I mean, how many people did this idea kill?  Or this one? How long did this idea relegate a significant portion of the American population to second class status? This man’s speech and a set of box cutters killed 3000 Americans and dragged us into a decades long war.

Gun are potentially dangerous. No one denies that. But it’s bad ideas, conveyed by speech, that’s responsible for the worst humanity has to offer. In this country, we protect speech, of both good and bad ideas, in the belief that the best way to counter bad ideas is to challenge them with good ones. Does that always work? We accept a lot of risk allowing free speech in society, and most Americans, including me, wouldn’t have it any other way. If the best defense against bad speech is good speech, maybe it’s not too far of a stretch to suggest that the best defense against bad guys with guns is more good guys with guns. Why is that so alien to our constitutional framework?

Gun Control in Church (Again)

Looks like the Presbyterian Lay Community is pushing gun control again. This is likely why Heeding God’s Call was formed out of a project by CeaseFire New Jersey. Unfortunately for them, this is another case of elites taking positions that are contrary to many of their members. For those gun owners who are religious, it might make sense to get involved in church leadership so the kibosh can be put on nonsense like this.

Getting Noticed

The Brady folks don’t seem to be too happy about Joe’s Starbucks day:

In case you missed it, last Saturday was “Starbucks Appreciation Day.” No, it was not a gesture of support from lovers of strong coffee (like me). The “appreciation” was on behalf of Americans who believe it is their sacred right to have a handgun with them wherever they go – even to carry it openly to make sure the rest of us know who are the real defenders of the Second Amendment.

Hey, it’s not me, it’s the Supreme Court. It would seem they at least have some people who agree with them. There seems to be a plausible legal argument under Heller that there may be regulation on how arms are worn, in that you don’t have any real specific right to carry concealed, or openly, but that you do have a right to carry in some fashion. So take your pick — open or concealed. You can prohibit one, maybe, but you may not prohibit both. There’s an easy way to stop this — reform California’s permitting system to make it shall-issue.

I should also note that Starbucks Appreciation Day was Sunday, not Saturday. But we’re not really that strict. I got a muffin and French Vanilla Latte on Monday too, which I would also consider part of the appreciation, considering I’m not a coffee drinker. But add enough milk and sugar to anything, and I will drink it.

One of Life’s Greatest Mysteries Solved

As most of you know, I attended a women’s college. One of the biggest mysteries to me was why many of the men I know asked me whether or not we used to have pillow fights. I cannot tell you how many have confessed that they just have this stereotype/fantasy of college girls in a single-sex environment having pillow fights.

I think I just found out why that fantasy exists – and how come it seems to be the same across age groups.

This dates back to 1897 and comes to us courtesy of Thomas Edison – yes, that Thomas Edison. He would have been 50 at the time, so I’m sure he quite enjoyed the short scene of romping young ladies.